Occupational standards are the blueprints of any nation’s skills system. When well-designed they are powerful tools that provide a shared language between educators, employers, and policymakers. They help qualifications and training stay relevant, ensure that learners emerge from education and training with the skills employers actually need, and offer clarity for learners navigating career pathways.

But we now have over 670 occupational standards, more than double the number in countries like Germany and Switzerland. Our economy isn’t twice as complicated. If we want to build a workforce ready for the future, we need to rethink how occupational standards are designed, developed, and deployed.

Recent research by Learning and Work Institute, in partnership with Pearson, shows that the system has improved in recent years. Employers are now more involved in developing standards. Data is being used more effectively. And there’s a growing effort to be strategic about when new standards are introduced or existing ones revised. These are important steps in the right direction.

Despite these gains, the system remains too narrow, too slow, and too fragmented.

England has 670 occupational standards because our standards are too narrowly defined. Overly specific standards limit flexibility, making it harder for individuals to move between related roles and for employers to adapt to changing needs.

Too many standards are driven by ad hoc requests from employer groups rather than a coordinated, sector-wide strategy. There’s no clear timeline for development or reviews, and some standards get stuck in limbo for months or even years. A tracker exists, but it doesn’t offer a forward-looking plan or transparency about what’s coming next. And it’s not always clear who owns a standard: the employer group that requested it? All employers in the sector? Government?

Cross-functional skills—like digital literacy, communication, or project management—are often described differently across standards. This inconsistency makes it harder for learners to understand how their skills transfer across roles. And yet these cross-functional skills emerge time and again in the research as amongst those that employers value most highly for long-term success.

As technology reshapes industries, we need a skills system that can respond quickly. We need a more efficient way to update qualifications or training to reflect new demands, or we risk leaving learners underprepared and workers unable to reskill fast enough.

We need more clarity on the role of Occupational Standards. Originally designed in England to support apprenticeships, they now underpin T Levels, Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs), and other technical and vocational qualifications at levels 3 to 5. But they haven’t evolved to reflect this broader role. We need to be much sharper about when a qualification needs to be pegged very closely to Occupational Standards – because it functions as an ‘entry to profession’ qualification – and when they need to be more broadly based to form a platform for progression to higher level study or alternative destinations. We also need a sharp, practical way of using standards to support shorter, more agile, training solutions.

The broader role of occupational standards offers us a huge potential to create a more coherent and responsive skills system. And the cost of not getting it right is daunting. Pearson’s research earlier this year found that gaps at career and learning transition points are costing the UK economy an estimated £96 billion annually—4% of national output. That includes £9 billion lost in job transitions and £23 billion lost in delays between education and employment.

To fix the system, we need to be bold and strategic. Here’s how:

We need to shift from narrowly defined job roles to broader, recognised, occupational clusters. This would make it easier for people to move between jobs and for employers to adapt to change. It would also reduce the overall number of standards, making the system more manageable.

We should use AI and big data more to identify emerging skills needs, engage employers more efficiently through digital platforms, and set clear timelines for each stage of the process. A transparent forward plan would help everyone understand what’s coming and when.

Standards should be designed to stand the test of time—but also to flex when needed. That could mean allowing a portion (say, 10%) of a standard to be tailored by employers, or enabling partial reviews when only part of a standard needs updating. A shared template and taxonomy would ensure consistency and make it easier to identify transferable skills.

We need a better understanding of how occupational standards relate to the qualifications they support. And standards shouldn’t just shape regulated qualifications—they can also serve as benchmarks for shorter, more agile training solutions that help workers upskill quickly in response to new demands.

Other countries have already shown that a more strategic, streamlined, and flexible approach to occupational standards is possible. If we follow their lead, we can build a system that supports better qualifications, better training, and better jobs.

Occupational standards can be the foundation of a smarter, more responsive skills system. But only if we’re willing to rethink how they work—and who they’re really for.